Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The Ramadan Olympics and Islam's "Law of Necessity"

Because Islam's "Law of
Necessity" fully permits Muslims to find creative ways to adapt when
Sharia Law conflicts with practical life, the argument that societies
are obliged to make concessions to privilege all the demands of strict
Sharia Law is considerably weakened.

Islam Is a flexible religion: religious obligations allow exceptions,
subject to circumstances. Muslim religious scholars balance
countervailing obligations to determine when exceptions apply.
Understanding such balancing of necessities in Islam is not only
important for public policy, but also for understanding how an identical
set of religious beliefs can be used to justify war or peace, terrorism
or peaceful coexistence.

Fasting During a Ramadan Olympics

As the London Olympics are underway, London organizers of the Olympics, according to a report in the New York Times,
are supporting the needs of Muslims athletes, "with more than 150
Muslim clerics on hand to assist athletes, as well as fast-breaking
packs including dates and other traditional foods."
As it is also the month of Ramadan, during which Muslims are
obligated not to eat or drink, even their own saliva, from sunrise to
sunset, spare a thought for the more than 3,500 Muslim competitors, who,
if they strictly observed Ramadan, would be abstaining from food and
drink from the first prayer of the day (Fajr) at 2.44 am through to the
dusk prayer (Maghrib) at 8.53 pm (as at July 29, 2012, see Islamicfinder.org).
Optimum sporting performance cannot be expected from athletes who go
without food or drink for over 18 hours -- a circumstance which would
not be fair to them.
Many Muslim Olympians now in London will therefore not be fasting. Some may rely on religious rulings (fatwas) which exempt sportspeople from the Ramadan fast, such as a ruling issued in 2010
by the German Central Council of Muslims, that Muslim professional
footballers, because they depend upon football for their living, need
not fast during Ramadan.
The United Emirates, using a different approach
stated that players may omit the fast as long as they do not stay in
one place for more than four days. This is based upon a standard
exemption for travelers during Ramadan (Sahih Bukhari, 3:31:167). Another exemption, following advice from imams in Morocco,
is being used by English Olympic rower Moe Sbihi, who announced that he
will donate 60 meals to poor people in Morocco for each missed fast
day. Many Olympic athletes are postponing their fasts until their
sporting commitments are completed. However, the Moroccan football team are fasting
and trusting that Allah will help them to victory. All Muslims agree
that fasting is obligatory during Ramadan; they differ in the exceptions
they make.

"Necessity": Balancing What Is Forbidden with What Is Permitted

There is a powerful principle in Islamic jurisprudence, the "Law of
Necessity," that permits what is forbidden -- the end justifying the
means. If a goal is obligatory, then the means can also be obligatory,
even if otherwise they might be forbidden.
In Islam the universe of possible human deeds is divided into what is
obligatory, permitted neutral, disliked, or forbidden. Then there is
the need to balance the pros and cons of every act. This is a world of
choice which can embrace a necessary evil, or take a pass on a good deed
for the sake of a greater good.
Some "Law of Necessity" exceptions go back to Muhammad; they are
hard-wired into Islamic law. A case in point is the exemption for
travelers during Ramadan, which some athletes rely on. Another exemption
for travelers, which also comes straight from Muhammad, allows Muslims
to catch up on prayer times later than the correct hour.
Life raises many complex challenges, and the balancing of obligations
and prohibitions may require more subtle reasoning, dependent on
context. The renowned medieval Muslim scholar al-Ghazali explained how
the principle of balancing necessities can be used to make lying
permitted or even compulsory, according to the circumstances:

"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a
praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying,
it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need
for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by
telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is
permissible … and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory . …" (The Reliance of the Traveller, p.745-46, paragraph r8.2)

Yusuf al-Qaradawy has written extensively about the jurisprudence of "balancing necessities." He explains that interests and pros and cons of any deed must be balanced, one against each other and weighed carefully.
Al-Qaradawy's focus was politics, not sport. He cited an example of
the support given by the Islamist political leader Maulana Maududi to
Fatima Jinnah in the 1965 presidential elections in Pakistan. Previously
Maududi had declared that it was not permissible in Islam for a woman
to govern (based on the teachings of Muhammad). He came, however, to
regard Jinnah as the lesser of two evils, so he commanded his followers
to vote for the female candidate, and against General Ayub Khan.
Understanding such balancing of necessities in Islam is important for
public policy -- to grasp how an identical set of religious beliefs can
be used to justify war or peace, terrorism or peaceful coexistence --
or any other decision, based solely on the circumstances at the time.

Balancing Necessities and Public Policy

Consider the issue of the timing of the Olympics: Was Juan Cole correct to suggest that the Olympic Games should be rescheduled so they did not fall in Ramadan?
The fact that the "Law of Necessity" allows Muslims to get around
restrictions suggests that although it might certainly have been
thoughtful or considerate, it would not in any way necessary to
reschedule the Olympics for the sake of Muslim religious sensitivities.
The possibility of balancing necessities needs to be taken into
account when organizations and governments are faced with demands that
they make concessions for the sake of complying with Islamic Sharia Law.
Because the Islamic "Law of Necessity" fully permits Muslims to find
creative ways to adapt when Sharia law conflicts with practical life,
the argument that societies are obliged to make concessions to privilege
all the strict demands of Sharia Law is considerably weakened.
Non-Muslims in particular need to take balancing necessities into
account. Consider Sheikh Ahmed al-Mahlawi of Egypt who accepts that it
is not a sin for Muslim religious scholars to see women in the streets
with unveiled faces: the need for Muslim scholars to get around in
public places outweighs the prohibition against men seeing women's
unveiled faces. He boasted, all the same, that he had compelled a US consular official to wear the hijab
[headscarf] when she met with him. If the U.S. official had been better
informed, she might have asked that Sheikh al-Mahlawi take a more
moderate, balanced approach. She might have refused to submit to the hijab, pointing out that the Sheikh copes very well with looking at the unveiled faces of women whenever he goes into the street.

Balancing Necessity and Terrorism

Al-Qaradawi concluded
that although it is wrong in general for Muslims to participate in
non-Islamic governments or to make alliances with non-Muslim nations,
compromises may be made when such lesser evils are 'balanced' against
the greater good of the Muslim cause.
He also made the observation that many of the conflicts between
different factions working for the success of Islam exist because of
different interpretations about how to "balance" the different
necessities and interests in Islam. Of course, Muslims who agree on
their fundamental principles of faith can have very different views on
how to balance these beliefs in any given situation.
Jihadi martyrs make use of theological balancing
necessities when they justify their methods for killing enemies. In
Islam, for example, it is forbidden to kill oneself, but suicide, if it
can be justified in the cause of Allah or furthering Islam, is not only
permissible but heroic. Jihadi clerics are more than willing to write
fatwas which ensure that a would-be martyr goes to his death with a
clear conscience. In Islam, it is forbidden to kill women and children,
but "collateral damage" is acceptable if a greater end is in sight. It
is also forbidden in Islam to lie, but it is recommended that a pious
jihadi use deception if necessary to achieve,
say, a "martyrdom operation." The Al-Qaeda manual, for instance, appeals
to the principle that "necessity permits the forbidden" to justify
criminal acts; and the Indonesian jihad cleric Abu Bakar Bashir argued
that jihadis were entitled to hack foreigner's bank accounts to obtain
funds (see The Crime-Terror Nexus, New York State Office of Homeland Security). (For a bizarre example of the extremes to which jihad fatwas can go, see this report by Raymond Ibrahim.)
The ramifications can be momentous for Muslims and non-Muslims alike:
consider the difference in opinion between the Saudi leaders and Usama
Bin Ladin concerning the presence of American soldiers in the Kingdom
after the invasion of Kuwait. Bin Ladin opposed this infidel 'occupation'. In his 1996 fatwa declaring war on America he counted the presence of US soldiers as "one of the worst catastrophes to befall the Muslims" since the death of Muhammad.
Saudia Arabia's Grand Mufti and supreme religious authority Sheikh
Ibn Baz, however, allowed American troops into Saudi Arabia, although in
another fatwa he had stated that Christian servants could not be
employed in Arabia:

"It is not allowed to have a non-Muslim maid. It is not
allowed to have a non-Muslim male or a non-Muslim female servant, or a
worker who is a non-Muslim for anyone living in the Arabian peninsula.
This is because the Prophet Muhammad ordered the Jews and Christians to
be expelled from that land. He ordered that only Muslims should be left
there. He decreed upon his death that all polytheists must be expelled
from this Peninsula. (Islamic Fatawa Regarding Women, p. 36 compiled by Abdul Malik Mujahid).

Both Usama Bin Ladin and the Saudi authorities agreed on the
principle that infidels could not be permitted to live in Saudi Arabia.
What they disagreed on was how to balance this against other
requirements, such as the need to safeguard the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
This difference was enough to trigger Bin Ladin's war on America.
What distinguishes a jihadi terrorist from a more peaceful Muslim,
therefore, may not be any fundamental difference in belief, but merely in a given instance, how the religious legal principles
of his faith should be applied.

Mark Durie is an Anglican vicar in Melbourne, Australia, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

2 comments:

I very much agree with Anne. The more we know, the better - more understanding, more power to respond well.

Yet, re "What distinguishes a jihadi terrorist from a more peaceful Muslim, therefore, may not be any fundamental difference in belief, but merely in a given instance, how the religious legal principles of his faith should be applied."

My experience is that different Muslims understand passages very differently - often from a desire that things should mean one thing or another. The more peaceful - or truly peaceful - who do not want to leave Islam often have a very different understanding of their religious texts. (Hard for me to grasp, but I've seen this time and again.)

AND MORE LINKS

Buy Sister Religions

Buy THE THIRD CHOICE

About Me

Dr Mark Durie is an academic, human rights activist, pastor, Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Adjunct Research Fellow of the Arthur Jeffery Centre of the Melbourne School of Theology. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. Holding a PhD in Linguistics from Australian National University and a ThD in Quranic Theology from the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.